Rep. Deutch Introduces OCCUPIED Constitutional Amendment To Ban Corporate Money In Politics

page: 7
129
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Doesn't change the fact that it's a start and pretty much everyone pro and anti Occupy, have agreed that it needs to include more groups.

I agreed with Beez that it should include unions, pac's, special interest groups, lobbyists, etc etc.
So what are you complaining about?




posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ladykenzie
 


This bill is a way for the democrats to control finances for elections. If you noticed most of the big coprs that give money to the democrats have moved away over the last 3 years from direct donations. Instead they set up a not for profit or a non-profit that they donate too for a tax right off and then that non-profit/not for profit group does all the donating to the politicians. This is a show piece to make people think that they are doing something when it was set up years ago that they would switch how they laundered money to congress.

The only way to truly stop corporate purchasing of political parties is to make it illegal to accept money or donations from coproarations, unions, advocacy groups etc. No money accept from individuals and limit the amount of money to no more than 1k per canidate per legal US citizen.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

Doesn't change the fact that it's a start and pretty much everyone pro and anti Occupy, have agreed that it needs to include more groups.

I agreed with Beez that it should include unions, pac's, special interest groups, lobbyists, etc etc.
So what are you complaining about?


My problem is that I actually think instead of blindly endorsing everyone who claims "they are here to save the U.S. and the world."...

If people actually stopped to READ and tried to UNDERSTAND what they are reading, we would be a lot closer to really solving the problems occurring in the U.S. and around the world...

Read what some of the other posters, after your last post, have to say. They are a lot closer to the truth than you are.

This bill IS NOT a start to solve all the problems in the U.S... It is nothing more than another bill puting the U.S. closer into becoming a socialist dictatorship, yet you are so blind and brainwashed that you think "it is a start"...

BTW, who is "pretty much everyone pro and anti OWS agrees"? ...

I am VERY certain that you don't know crap about what "pretty much everyone in the U.S." has to say about this... I know I am NOT talking about what every other American wants, because i do not know so, and I am not that naive, nor am I crazy to claim that I know what every American wants... Yet you seem sure you know what "pretty much everyone pro and anti OWS American wants"...


The arrogance of some people is just unsettling...

edit on 21-11-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


I do read and understand. I did read what you guys pointed out. Hence why I said it needs work, but the surface idea is sound.

You come off kind of obnoxious when you attempt to condescend. Your fears are the extreme exaggeration of every possible negative scenario. You aren't right and neither is someone that would blindly follow the bill. The stated goal of it is a good thing. It's just the omission of other groups and one vagueness of the business ban that make it undesirable. With some tuning it would be a good thing.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

I do read and understand. I did read what you guys pointed out. Hence why I said it needs work, but the surface idea is sound.

You come off kind of obnoxious when you attempt to condescend. Your fears are the extreme exaggeration of every possible negative scenario. You aren't right and neither is someone that would blindly follow the bill. The stated goal of it is a good thing. It's just the omission of other groups and one vagueness of the business ban that make it undesirable. With some tuning it would be a good thing.


You think i am obnoxious?... Imagine what others, and myself feel when people like you claim you know what we all, and all other Americans want...

Regulation IS NOT A SOLUTION... Similar regulation, led by PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS, was implemented back in the 1930s and led to a recession in the U.S., not to mention the depression caused by earlier PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT policies... Yet you claim that doing the same thing now will solve the problems?...

edit on 21-11-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


The most important thing to remember is that it doesn't MATTER what every American wants. Only in so far as it falls inline with the COTUS...

We just need to get back to following the COTUS and severely punish those who try to circumvent it outside of the confines of it.

Jaden



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Progressive Republicans helped cause the depression with their free-market ideology stemming from old-fashioned liberalism(yes, liberals during the 1920's believed, whole-heartedly, in free markets). Every president from 1921 to 1933 were Republicans. Every congress was Republican majority (super-majorities in some years). Now we have conservative Republicans trying to do the same thing 80 years later.

Sure, progressives were partly responsible for the great depression. However, progressives of the 1920's would be considered conservatives of the 2000's based solely on their economic views.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by brice
reply to post by seachange
 


Martha's B @ B ain't gonna be donatin' nuttin', it's going to be the owner of that B @ B donating $5000.00 to the candidate of their choice, nothing wrong with that, Just like the stockholders of corporations (not the corps.) can donate to the candidate of their choice.....get it?
brice

No, I don't get it. I have no idea what you're talking about. The bill listed in the OP is all about screwing over both big business and small business. Since 90% of businesses are small business, the bill screws over 90% of us while the other 10% will have the lawyers and/or lack of moral values in some cases to skirt around the amendment. How could you support a bill that screws over the little guy?

The bill is a joke and the guy who wrote it is a liar. Read the thing. It starts off PRETENDING to apply to corporations and then comes out with the truth that it applies to *ALL* private business interests. Why would it even bother to list "corporations" when in point of fact the text simply says that to pander.

Okay after reading that a couple more times I see that you believe there is a division that means Martha issuing out a personal check is different than Martha issuing out a business check, and the government will always automatically create such a magical division. Where in the amendment does it say such a division exists? Nowhere, that is where. The amendment allows the judge to say "sorry Martha but you are a business person and the money you give to candidates is business money". No such protection for Martha exists in the amendment to say there is a division there. Only you assume it. Bad, bad, assumption. You know what they say about "assume", right?

For many legal purposes, sole proprietorships have no separation between the person owning them and their business! So, under that amendment it would be constitutional to say sole proprietors are no longer allowed to give money to any candidates. This is disgusting! I'm sorry but that text is undefendable. It has to apply to corporations and LLCs only, and not sole proprietorships! Or at least 90% of the smallest sole proprietorships.

Martha's B&B IS Martha for legal purposes. Get it? There is no difference by default between Martha and Martha's B&B for legal purposes! Only where the law specifies there is a difference is there a difference. And no, this bill in question does not specify any difference!

edit - Most small businesses and nearly all start-ups are sole proprietorships. Look at what Wikipedia says about sole proprietorships:

A sole proprietorship, also known as the sole trader or simply a proprietorship, is a type of business entity that is owned and run by one individual and in which there is no legal distinction between the owner and the business.
So read that carefully and then compare it with your comment. Its not possible for Martha, who happens to own Marthas B&B to donate $5,000 to Ron Paul without Martha's B&B also having donated $5,000 to Ron Paul.
edit on 21-11-2011 by seachange because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


Nice, well thought out reply/post star for you. You are right there could be a legal determination that "Martha" the business did make the contribution and not "Martha" the individual. Being one and the same for legal purposes "Martha" is not a business but an individual. I ran a proprietorship for years, but if I'm wrong, not being a lawyer I apologise.
brice



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I don't see why anyone should be getting all excited about this. It's not like the government follows amendments anyway. Even if all the loopholes were plugged in this amendment, it's all just a big joke and just for show nowadays. Next thread please.
edit on 22-11-2011 by CountSymphoniC because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


You are wrong. You however choose to remain ignorant, so it is pointless to argue with you. I do take satisfaction in the fact that we are out there for change and there is nothing you can do about it but complain online. Don't worry one of two things will happen. We will be successful and you will have a better live or we wont be and you will suffer at the hands of a government owned by corporations. You actually are wrong about the great depression, and conservatives today are calling for the same things that caused it then LOL.

This is only gonna get worse unless we fix it.

edit on 22-11-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by LazyGuy
 


Let's see:

Democrat: Ban corporate money and take away corporate "personhood"

Republican:Occupy crowd should take a bath and get a job


Many ATSers: Both parties are the same.



See how the GOP won't offer one proposal to better this nation other then to maintain the "status quo" which is costing us everything and how they are being quick to attack their fellow countrymen, now if we all were saying "Reduce the size of Govt" they'd be all over it but since that obviously will never happen they attack instead of offering alternatives proves to me who is the ones that are truly ruining this glorious nation!
edit on 22-11-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


You are dead up wrong, up until the New Deal Act of the 1940's there was no regulations and there was no consumer protections. NDA ordered regulations and oversight in place that lasted beautifully until the 1980's when Reagen decided to cut essential protectionery Govt services like regulations and oversight. In the 40 year gap between 1945 - 1985 the regulations and constraints on the markets actually allowed our nation to prosper thus allowing us to become the economical and financial superpower and powerhouse we once were and this slippery slope we are on today is the culmination of the last 30 years of deregulaiton. There used to be a time whereas we were the global leaders on a whole litany of topics nowadays we've been playing catchup and all of this is courtesy of deregulaiton. In the period of before 1945 and post 1999 the market became a casino whereas companies used other people's money to hedge and place bets and when their bets failed they threatened the Govt with a financial armageddon if we didn't cover their bets yet you and some other idiots think that this is perfectly ok, to allow financial firms to do whatever they want and think they are above the law! To sit here and vehemently defend these practices without being willing to look at the cause and without being able to offer one fix means they own you.

Prior to 1945 there was nothing stopping a company from running roughshot over the populous and the nation. Deregulation in this case is clearly NOT AN OPTION.

I've already shot down you claims in other threads and have done it here as this I say is not another opinion but is a solid and confirmed FACT!

Facts continue to speak for themselves.

If you want to gamble go play the lottery, go to the Atlantic City, NJ - Las Vegas, Nevada or the numerous casino's and horse tracks throughout the nation but if you want to put your money into something sound and protected put it into the markets. The stock market is not for using other people's money to place bets.
edit on 22-11-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
What would stop a big corporation from spending a large sum of money on "consulting".

Then the consulting firm finds 1000 people and pays them $50 each to buy a money order in their name and donate to a candidate for the maximun donation. The consultant has cash for the $50 payment and for the money order and is present when the "contributor" buys the money order and the consultant makes sure the money order is delivered to the candidate.

The consulting firm could mobilize 10's of thousands to do the same.

Any outfit like an Acorn could get millions to a candidate - anonymously.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


The rules would be written that would ban a private individual working on the behest of a corporation from being allowed to donate to a campaign, say you work for I don't know, Halliburton, your boss would be banned from giving you money to donate on behalf of them that would make the donation appear like if it came from you. That is a backdoor donation which would also be banned!



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by LazyGuy
 


All campaign contributions other than those from individuals should be prohibited. Then we might be on track to having what our country's founding fathers envisioned: government of the people where individual sovereignty is supreme.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234

Progressive Republicans helped cause the depression with their free-market ideology stemming from old-fashioned liberalism(yes, liberals during the 1920's believed, whole-heartedly, in free markets). Every president from 1921 to 1933 were Republicans. Every congress was Republican majority (super-majorities in some years). Now we have conservative Republicans trying to do the same thing 80 years later.

Sure, progressives were partly responsible for the great depression. However, progressives of the 1920's would be considered conservatives of the 2000's based solely on their economic views.


No, the depression occurred thanks to Progressive Democrats in Congress, and a Progressive Democrat President, Woodrow Wilson, who in 1913 signed into law the Federal Reserve Act which banned the gold standard and created the papernote known as the American Dollar.

It was the Progressive Democrats who put the rich banker elites in control of the economy of the United States, and they caused the depression...

The Free market ideology was NEVER the problem... The problem was giving control over the economy of this nation to the rich bankers through the Feds...

The problem was the outlawing of the gold and silver standard and creating an economy based on nothing more than paper... Such an economy was set up to fail from the start, and we have been seeing the results for embracing such ideas and such an economy.



edit on 22-11-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


There's no such thing as a libertarian free market that doesn't end with the wealthy elite in power. Once of the most basic misunderstandings the far right seem to have is their naive belief in a market that can regulate itself...

Libertarianism = wealthy elite in power



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by xuenchen
 


The rules would be written that would ban a private individual working on the behest of a corporation from being allowed to donate to a campaign, say you work for I don't know, Halliburton, your boss would be banned from giving you money to donate on behalf of them that would make the donation appear like if it came from you. That is a backdoor donation which would also be banned!


yes yes of course.

but how would you confirm and enforce such a "law".

it's real easy to fund a plan anonymously.

the CIA does it all the time and so do the corporations.

and the "doner" technically would not be working for the corporation and would not even know who it was.

everything is done under the table with cash.

I think this has already happened. I know people who have been involved.


since when are the corporations "honest" ?


edit on Nov-23-2011 by xuenchen because:




posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Corporations would simply branch out into non-profits and funnel the money that way.

The Constitution can be likened to an old ship that once sailed effortlessly, but now needs so many patches that
water (greed) will always find a way to seep through the cracks.

It's time for a new political system.





new topics
top topics
 
129
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join